Talk:Operation Storm

Should we remove these tags on the top of the article

about 75% of the article is sourced properly.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I am still waiting for an answer from you on how to get the UN back into the article (see my last post under "role of the UN" above) and a few other things. You have removed all mention of the UN. Secondly, some sources are still questionable. Some are strange. For example, what, pray tell, does the "census" of former Sector East per the ICTY Milosevic indictment have to do with Op Storm? I am hoping more editors will take an interest here, perhaps after another article has progressed further and sources have been decided upon. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

This is 1 interesting source [1]--Rjecina (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source [2] and another [3] --Rjecina (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am having problem with tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed". Can somebody explain me what is needed so that this tag is deleted ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. It's tornado season in the US and I've been without electricity and then also internet service for some days. I am working on correcting the inaccuracies as I have time. They range from some of the problems I have already corrected in the timeline (see below) to the place of surrender (the surrender was outside Glina in the direction of Topusko, not in Vojnic). New problems with accuracy have recently cropped up, as well. Civilaffairs (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Removal of POV on operating "forcing" Serbs to leave

This sentence needs revision: "However the operation forced approximately 200,000 to 250,000 [7] Serbs to flee to Serb-held parts of Bosnia and Serbia." Although it is sourced, the source documents the number of displaced people, not the reason why they left. Saying that Operation Storm "forced" those people to leave is the same as calling the entire thing deliberate ethnic cleansing. However, as other parts of wikipedia make clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martic-order1995.jpg), the local populace was evacuated at the behest of the SPK, before Croat forces reached the area. --Pisciotta11 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An additional edit: I assume the inclusion of Carl Bildt's statement here is to showcase international reaction to Operation Storm. I've added some sourced statements from other credible international actors, including the German and U.S. governments. Also included is official Croatian reaction to Bildt's statement. --Pisciotta11 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to your POV, that sentence is POV. According to those of another POV, the way you have "corrected" the sentence is POV. What we should be striving for here is NPOV. Until there is a decision in the ongoing Hague trial of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač, perhaps the best solution is to simply say the refugees fled and let the two POVs be made known through the conflicting views of the Europeans and some of the US and UK media on one side, and the leaders of Croatia, the USA and Germany on the other side.

Actually the Carl Bildt quote was added by me. The original was "The operation has been called ethnic cleansing." As a new editor, I naively was trying to follow WP:Avoid Weasel Terms and used Bildt as the source. GriffinSB retaliated with a string of quotes from American officials (who assisted Croatia with Op Storm) originally sourced to the defense attourney of the Croatian generals, but now better sourced. Now you have added more quotes from German officials (who also assisted Croatia) plus protestations from Croatian officials. Furthermore, you have not provided urls for your sources. I really don't think a long-winded argument like this should take up the bulk of the intro to an article about a military operation.

Perhaps we can find a way to shorten it here and make a new secton to cover this controversy. The Dutch source given by Rjecina above puts it rather succinctly: the EU called it ethnic cleansing while Croatia and the US denied this. It would be nice if we could agree on a short summary like this for the intro, and expand explanation of this controversy in a separate section if needed. The intro needs more simple and important facts about the actual military operation itself. As it is, it is nearly completely taken up with all these quotes.

You have used the ICTY indictment of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač as a source to reduce the number of refugees but ignored the charges themselves (that the refugees were indeed forced out, according to the indictment). You also ignore the the charges referencing the fake evacuation orders dropped from Croatian aircraft and alarmist messages broadcast by the Croats using RSK civilian radio frequencies.

News accounts generally give 200,000 or 250,000. The correct number is probably around 230,000 (UNHCR figure no longer available online). ICTY uses conservative numbers of course. Perhaps the best thing to do is give either 200,000 (number most often cited in various reports) or else the range of 150,000 to 250,000 in the intro, then explain the wide discrepancy in the figures in the "refugees" section?

The caption on the "Martic order" was quite misleading and I have now corrected it. If you read the text of the order, you will find it did not apply to "the main areas of RSK" as stated in the caption, but rather:

1. To start evacuating population unfit to military service from the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drniš and Gračac. 2. Evacuation to be carried out according to the plan towards direction of Knin and furthermore via Otrić, and towards Srb and Lapac.

How this order recorded as given at 16:45 on 4 August was supposed to have been made known to the populace is beyond me (Serb comms were jammed compliments of the USA and the Croats were broadcasting their own messages on the RSK civilian radio frequencies). How this order was supposed the effect the flight of close to a quarter million people from an area of over 10,000 square kilometres within the space of hours is also beyond me.

No, all had not left before Croat forces reached the area, not by a long shot. You can learn more by reading Rjecina's Dutch source and the report of the Secretary-General on Croatia to the Security Council of 23 August. You may also want to have a look at our discussion about NPOV sources over on the talk page of Serbs of Croatia, as well as some discussion of Operation Storm there. Included is a rather tiresome discussion of the "Martic order" for good measure.

The sourced HRW report which states there was not a single Croat left in the UNPAs after January 1993 is flat wrong and contradicted by other reports. True, Croats remaining in the UNPAs were treated most horribly and most were expelled. There were very few Croats left in the UNPAs, but there were those very few. At last (by January of 1994, possibly earlier, not sure of date), UNPROFOR (and later UNCRO) co-located UN battalions in areas where there were remaining Croats to protect them and also permanently deployed professional civilian humanitarian teams in the Sectors to assist and monitor the welfare of the remaining minority populations. The US State Department human rights report of January 1994 states "UNPROFOR estimates that fewer than 400 Croats remain in Sector South." This is a pitifully small number, but remain they did. A small number of Croats also remained in Sector North up until the very end, but I have not found an online report of the exact number so far.

If you insist on having the Marcus Tanner quote in the intro, we will have to add how the Croatian Serbs were in fact prevented from returning (burning of houses, harrassment, killings, various laws erected as obstacles to return, etc.)Civilaffairs (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Okay, done. The number of ethnic Croats remaining in Sectors North and South has been added. The HRW report states around 1,100 remained in Sector South and the Pink Zones, while the US State Department report says fewer than 400 remained in Sector South. Assuming that the majority were in the Pink Zones, I used the US report for Sector South and the HRW report for Sector North. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Hello, there's a lot of material to tackle here, I probably will require some time to address it all.

First something easy:

Now you have added more quotes from German officials (who also assisted Croatia) plus protestations from Croatian officials. Furthermore, you have not provided urls for your sources.

Point taken; URL of quote article now in the reference. However, not every credible source necessarily has an URL.

Moving on...

News accounts generally give 200,000 or 250,000. The correct number is probably around 230,000 (UNHCR figure no longer available online). ICTY uses conservative numbers of course. Perhaps the best thing to do is give either 200,000 (number most often cited in various reports) or else the range of 150,000 to 250,000 in the intro, then explain the wide discrepancy in the figures in the "refugees" section?

I disagree with the statement that "news accounts generall give 200,000 or 250,000." For example, "Aid agencies said the Serb exodus from Croatia could total 150,000-200,000 people," which comes from an Aug. 7, 1995 Associated Press story "Croatia Announces End to Military Operation," by George Jahn. (No URL, unfortunately.) There's this from an Aug. 5, 1995 New York Times article: "Thus today's action will bolster those who believe, as do some diplomats here, that what really lies behind the offensive is the determination of the Croats simply to expel the 150,000 Serbs in Krajina." (URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEED8133EF936A3575BC0A963958260). BTW, I don't agree with every assertion contained with this article, but for the most part it is credible. This Oct. 16, 1997 article in the San Francisco Chronicle actually pegs the number of refugees at 135,000. (a copy of the article pasted into a forum can be found at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TWATCH-L;ajqZIA;19971022111820-0400) An April 14, 2002 Los Angeles Times article about U.S. companies hired to train foreign armies pegs the number at "more than" 150,000. (Again this article has been copied and pasted at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/training/pmc.htm)

And so on, and so on. I would suggest staying with the ICTY indictment numbers because that simply is the most official number possible. However, keep in mind that usage of the indictment as a source of figures doesn't necessarily equate endorsement of the thinking contained therein.

--Pisciotta11 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina has provided a great article about the Serb population in Krajina during the war.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DC133EF937A25753C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

btw. former "Krajina president" Goran Hadzic is the third fugitive on the ICTY list amd is acused of crimes against humanity,deportations,murders etc.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrections made to timeline

I removed the following sentence from August 5: Serb forces launched artillery attacks on Croatian civilians in Dubrovnik in the far south and Vinkovci in the far east of Croatia, without any specific military purpose. Reason: The cited source did not mention Vinkovci at all. The shelling of the Dubrovnik area by VRS (Bosnian Serb Army) occurred on or about August 17, according to the source and had to do with the assault on Trebinje, not Op Storm. In addition, the shelling apparently had to do with the massing of troops for the assault on Trebinje. I also reinstated the original "captured" rather than "liberated". We really should avoid such POV terms. "Liberated" is not used in articles about civil wars. We don't, for example, say Sherman "liberated" Atlanta (American Civil War).

I also removed the following sentence from August 5 sourced to state-controlled HRT (and in "local language"): Large refugee columns formed in many parts of Croatian Serb territory, so virtually the entire Serb population fled into Bosnia along the evacuation corridors established by the Croatian military on UN demand. The UN demanded no such thing. The UN demanded that HV stop strafing and shooting at the refugee columns. This sentence substantially conflicts with official UN reports, including reports of the Secretary-General. Let us try to stick to NPOV sources in this article.

From Operations in July-August 1995 I removed this sentence: The Croatian Serbs recognised the weakness which has created massive panic in Krajina population. Reason: the cited source did not support this sentence nor even touch upon this subject.

There are a number of other problems with the timeline. I will try to work on them as I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilaffairs (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. If there is problem with section please put tag in that section of article. I will now again delete tag. Writing tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is putting under factual accuracy question all article, but factual accuracy of all article is not in question.--Rjecina (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

If we look HHO report definition of Operation Storm and Serbs in Krajina is:"Croatian Army launched Operation Storm, an offensive to retake the Krajina region, which had been controlled by separatist ethnic Serbs since early 1991"

If we look NYT times definition is: "Croatian Army Begins Attack on Rebel Serbs" [4].

If we will look wikipedia rules my thinking is not important, your thinking is not important. Only important things are reliable sources and New York Times is wikipedia reliable sources and similar to that HHO is reliable source because of sources consensus about Yugoslav Wars.--Rjecina (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

August 14, 2008 dispute: Serb inhabited vs Serb occupied

This variation in content has led to a dispute throughout the day; and it is better to resolve the issue here than to continue to reverts in which you all make vicious remarks. In my honest opinion, both of these comments are inappropriate for differing reasons. The fact that the region was Serb-inhabited is not really important: Eastern Slavonia was held by a Serbian faction and that was the concern for Croatian authorities, not whether it had a Serbian population living there. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the region was ever 100% Serbian, because there was no census information for those years. It is believed however, that there were members of other nationalities living there, who remained totally unaffected; though it is not important for this paragraph. To say that the region was "Serb occupied" is equally erroneous, and somewhat misleading. I associate occupations as self-invitation programmes such as the Israeli presence on the occupied territories, rather like its 2006 invasion of Lebanon. There was no Israeli population in the region, neither was it unredeemed territory, but there was an excuse that being there helped protect its citizens from cross-border attacks. Ofcourse, I know of no shelling raging between Vojvodina and Slavonia for one country to go into the other. In reality, the presence of external forces in Eastern Slavonia acted as a surge in security numbers, appointed to uphold the Serbian authority within Eastern Slavonia. It doesn't quite add up to an "occupation", maybe a semi-occupation if such a term can be coined. But then I am not a part of the revert war. If ultimately, more should decide that the Eastern Slavonian authorities and security forces were wholly external, originating from Serbia-proper, and against the wishes of the Eastern Slavonian Serb population, who am I to argue? I havn't been looking for sources to prove or disprove anything: but if "occupation" is deemed appropriate, then it must be stated that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the occupier, not Serbia. To take a fictional example: if Salzburg (Austria) finds itself besieged by soldiers and tanks from Bavaria, acting on government orders, then the occupation can only be by Germany, not Bavaria. Serbia until 2006 was a partner in a federation, so regardless of the numerical dominance, there were no separate Serb or Montenegrin military factions which existed between 1991 and 1995. Tanks sanctioned by Belgrade into Slavonia, whether to support a local authority, or to hold the territory within the Belgrade authority, only amount to an FYR occupation. Now I don't mind which of the two terms occupied vs inhabited you all insist on, something about the present form will have to change. Please discuss and don't revert yourselves. Evlekis (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I appriciate your attempt to reach neutrality as always, but sometimes you fail and this is perfect example. 1/3 of Croatia was occupied by military actions, Storm resolved a large part of it but not all. Eastern Slavonia was not involved in action. That's what sentence said. Nothing more. A Serbian user changed "occupied" to "inhabitted", which is a joke. Nothing new, Serbs deny that there was some masacre in Srebrenica, etc... Vukovar was not "inhabittted" by Serbs, it was occupied!!! With many human victims!!! Before the war Serbs were just a minority there, from the end of 91 to summer of 95 there were no non-Serbs. The other part of your comment is useless too, Serbs, Montenigrins, federal, non-federal,... All reliable sources about this war mention Serbs, during that war Serbs also were using Serbs and Croatian publics also used Serbs. Change that User:PrimEviL tried to introduce was nothing but denial of some facts which are not disputed: Crotian territory was occupied! His change automatically gives distorted picture: Eastern Slavonia inhabitted by Serbs! There is nothing to discuss, except honesty of involved users. End of discussion. Zenanarh (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

3rd proposition: Serb controled !?--Rjecina (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, we are not talking about no man's land or some neutral territory controlled by one or another side. This is territory of the Republic of Croatia we're talking about, internationally recognised within its "Avnoj" borders in 91,92. And Op. Storm was in 1995. Vukovar was sieged for months by huge millitary forces coming from Serbia, heavily demolished, ethnic-cleansed of non-Serb population after its fault and controlled by an army and internationally unrecognised Serb para-state. "Controlled" is just a part of "occupied" in this context. Why to introduce half-true instead of true. Just because some Serb feels uncomfortable about it? Isn't it much appropriate for him/her to feel uncomfortable concerning what his/her compatriots were doing in Croatia 15 years ago??? This is not a game. Zenanarh (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pro that one... the "3rd one"... not completely, tho. inhabited is more proper.

@User:Zenanarh 1. no, i do NOT deny the massacre in srebrenica. 2. no, i do NOT deny the bombing of vukovar. 3. no, i'm not denying all the idiots that went in croatia to fight for "serbian lands" from serbia. but are you honest when it comes to "U" marked caps on Ban Jelac's square? 4. serbs may have been a minority in (eastern) slavonia before the war, but they were considerable one. 5. before the war serbs represented 12% of population in SR Croatia, after the war only 4.5% - a slight change in numbers, right? 6. i am a serb (and i'm not "some serb", show some respect for your conversaries), but not all serbs are supporters of sheshelj "greater serbia" project, you need to sort those thoughts. i am aware of many travesties serbs have been doing in croatia, but you're trying to say that croats had more right to seccede than serbs?

i may be wrong about some details, but you are trying to completely deny that there was ever presense of the serbs in any part of croatia. (eastern) slavonia (probably not whole) was inhabited by the serbs, and if there came any outer warlord(shesheljs troops, arkan, whoever), you can't say that it was occupied on the count of vukovar. let it be changed to "inhabited" or, as rjecina proposed "controled". have a nice day. --PrimEviL 15:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "U" supporter and I don't have to be honest or dishonest about it. A bunch of idiots if you ask me. You obviously have problem about "secession" thing. According to the constitution of SFRJ any Republic had right to secede but only within its "Avnoj" territory. "Srpska Krajina" was not political unit, it was not Autonomous Province either (like Kosovo & Metohija and Vojvodina - Autonomous Provinces of SR Serbia). Before '91 in Croatia it was not even recognised as a geographical province in common usage, except in historical context (Ottoman wars). Also historical name was not "Srpska Krajina", it was "Vojna Krajina" or just "Krajina"! Geographical provinces which parts were involved were Dalmatia, Lika, Banija, Kordun,... Croatian secession was legal and recognised by internetional community. Secession of Serbian minority in Croatia was not. I didn't say that Croats had more right to secede than Serbs. It was not secession of Croats, it was secession of Croatia. So secession of Serbs in Croatia is irrelevant. Of course they didn't have that right, as well as Croatian minority in Serbia, in Belgrade for example, don't have right to secede from Serbia.

you are trying to completely deny that there was ever presense of the serbs in any part of croatia; Don't play with words. Where did I write something like that?

(eastern) slavonia (probably not whole) was inhabited by the serbs; '91 Censi for Vukovar county 58% Croats, 33% Serbs. Serbs made majority only in a few villages.

you can't say that it was occupied on the count of vukovar; Yes I can. You are playing again. Vukovar was not aside from the story that happened there. It was just the bigger city in the area so therefore the main target for the agressors. When Vukovar fell, it was not only Vukovar, it was all area with Vukovar as the main centre. Millitary actions were spread on all area, not just a city.

"inhabitted" is out of question. You cannot say that East. Slavonia was inhabitted by Serbs in period 91-95, since at least a half of these "inhabitants" of yours were fully armed soldiers. Their "inhabitting" of E. S. was result of aggressive millitarry actions with many casualties. In that period it was "inhabitted" by Serbs just because all non-Serbs were ethnically cleansed from the region. Op. Storm was concentrated on neutralizing of Serb paramilitarry forces, not inhabitants.

"controlled" is much more appropriate but still useless for the reason I've explained earlier. Zenanarh (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Zenanarh, I see these past days for the first time how much you really know. It's one error after another. Let's look at everything you say in reverse: "sources", reliable and unreliable. If we were discussing sicences, mathematics, geology; we could easily see how some sources are more proven than others, but this is politics my friend. There are no reliable sources for anything. A reliable source is one which pleases the reader, an unreliable one is one which doesn't. I have followed disputes and conflicts for years and years, not just in the Balkans, but all over the world, and have even examined historcal chapters, and all reports/commentaries are the same: they favour one side, or the other, but never have I read a report which sets out to do precisely what its purpose is to do, which is to be objective. When a report is objective, the viewer/listened will invariably be left with a picture in which he can no more blame one side than the other. But do to this, the report needs to list a move-by-move account of both opposing factions, giving an overview as to what the goals are, why, and how they are trying to achieve them. Your BBC doesn't do this, just the other week, I watched an hour long Panorama propaganda campaign against the Sudanese government, yet never did it mention the activities of the two main rival paramilitary groups, nor their provocations in the affair. The whole show might just have been scripted by SLM officials. Now I can list you thousands of internet sources from blogs, journals and magazines about the Balkan wars from over 70 countries (so far). The nature is forever the same: for Krajina, it will be pro-Serb, or pro-Croat, but never truely exposing both evils. Now this will lead me to my next point, that from 1991-1995 there were no non-Serbs. Now, for Estonia to be at war with neighbouring Latvians or Russians, and to cause a flood of victims among those populations is one thing. To state that it specifically targeted non-Estonians is altogether different. That is the one hallmark of anti-subject propaganda, when its victims are "non-members" rather than just the plain "opponent population, and not all of them" which I found to perpetually be the case in all conflicts. It may come as a shock to you, but some reporters here and there, when having written about Croatian activities in the aftermath in Gospić, Herzeg-Bosna, and in the aftermath of Storm, acuse Croats of going after the "non-Croatian population", do you like the sound of this? It is nothing more than the writer's attempt to give a "holocaust sex appeal" to the scenario, turning resders away from you. But can you find me a single source which condemns Serbs for harming non-Serbs, and Croats for harming non-Croats and all in the same sheet from the same editor? I've been searching for one such report for years and never found it. So what makes the pro-Croat one more reliable than the other? And in any case, if you did stumble across an article attacking the Serbs and Croats for their action towards their own non-members, where did that leave ethnic Hungarians? or other ethnicities? It would appear that they were at risk from both...and if the Serbs had honestly succeeded in wiping out the non-Serbs of their provinces, why does the Hague accuse Gotovina or crimes against the non-Croat population on the same land? Shouldn;t that just be "Serb population" since Serbs purportedly wiped out the non-Serbs? And another thing. Please send me your sources to show that Eastern Slavonia had no Serbs from 1991 to 1995? I've been looking for this kind of information for years and never found it. Do you know how hard it is to substantiate your claim? The only way to do this is to provide a list of all of Eastern Slavonija's inhabitants, their names and their declared nationalities by the side; and it has to be authentic, anything else is no proof of any kind. Bare in mind also, that Serbs enlisted the help and assistance of non-Serbs such as the Greeks and the Romanians. If one Greek had lived there, and who can prove he didn't, these Greeks would have helped expel him. Not likely. And finally, your "reliable" sources give that Croatian lands were occupied by "Serbia". I say to you now, show me your map of the world in 1995 and point out where a country called Serbia was, because I can't find it. I only know of an FYR, which included Montenegro, and as I said, there was no separate Serbian faction looking to break away. Either 1/3 of Croatia was occupied by the FYR, or it wasn't occupied, take your pick. 92.12.167.254 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are showing very good what is propaganda !

My answer to your 32 lines is very short. Croatia census 1991 for territory of future Krajina: Serbs 52.15 %, Croats 35.9 %, others 11.94 %. ICTY numbers from this census are: Serbs 48.16 %, Croats 38.24 % and others 13.6 %. Krajina census from 1993: Serbs 91 %, Croats 7 % and others 2 %.--Rjecina (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And the numbers of today say... what?--PrimEviL 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Today numbers are saying that Krajina Serbs under order of government of Republic of Serbian Krajina has left Croatian territory. Croatia is not guilty for Krajina Serbs leaving, but she can "only" be guilty for destroying houses (after population has left) and similar so that they can't return. Only demographic data which can show real situation in Krajina after territory is returned to Croatian control is demographic data for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem.--Rjecina (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

92.12.167.254 is you Evlekis? Listen buddy, I didn't claim that expelling of non-Serbs automatically meant non-Serbs left there. Of course there were some non-Serbs left. We don't have to discuss about it at all. It's stupid. Actually I didn't realize that we must discuss about population shit here at all. I presume that everyone, who is writing here, knows something about it. 29 of 32 lines you wrote about non-Serbs are totally out of topic.

You're right there was no Serbia in '95 in the maps, there was FYR. But result of millitary offensives (Serbian paramillitaries and JNA) was eastablishment of so-called "Srpska Krajina", which was not a part of FYR, so nobody can say that 1/3 of Cro was occupied by FYR. Srpska Krajina had Srpska (Serbian) adjective in its name. We are using term "rebelled Serbs" here, but in the same time we are talking about the war in Croatia and not about the rebellion! We are talking about Serb rebels in Croatia but we all know that every their action was conducted by Belgrade. We all heard about Slobodan Milošević. Evlekis did you ever hear that name? We are talking about JNA (Yugoslav People's Army) but we all must be aware of the fact that after secession of Slovenia and Croatia this new JNA was not the old one JNA (property of all Republics equally). Dayton agreement meant the end of the war. Signers were Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian (FYR if you wish) president. There was no any representative of Croatian Serbs! War was in Croatia and B&H, not in Serbia. 1/3 of Croatia was occupied by Serbs of course, there were not only local Serbs. Otherwise it would mean that Cro Serbs had control over all fucking JNA arsenal. So Cro Serbs attacked Bosnia too?Operation Storm was planned to reinstall control of Cro government over a large part of occupied Cro territory. Not Serb "inhabitted" one. Serbian inhabitants of Croatia lived and live in other parts of Croatia too. Also a lot of loyal Serbs were soldiers in HV (Cro Army) in the same war. They were inhabitants of Croatia too. All this discussion is completely useless. Zenanarh (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, yes I was the IP. I've struggled to log on properly these past days, computer problems. At last, we get somewhere Zenanarh, 90% of what you say is fine and agreeable on this occasion. I fel though, that "occupied" is a little heavy for the scenario; technical issues. In my original statement, I made no secret of the fact that I am no expert on the Croatian wars, and fair play to you, as you surely know more than I do. If you honestly believe that the Croatian lands were occupied, that is fine, I have no argument to say "no they were not". I am just concerned about the name of the occupier, believing that it needs to be a proper country, as the plain presence of foreign fighters doesn't equate to an occupation. A true occupying force works on a mandate issued by its own government, and as such, represents that government on the occupied territory at all times; independent of the fellow organisation it pubicly supports. Now to paint the full picture of the Serbian scenario in the 1990's, we can find dribs and drabs from other happenings in the world these past few years; among them all, they cover the entire Serbs in Croatia scenario. Compare the Israeli occupation of Lebabon in 2006, and Russia over Georgia today. Note also the Russian open support for the separatists in Transdniester (Moldova), donating arms, tanks, people, and capital. But it is not recorded as being a true occupation, even if the purpose for Moscow is to uphold a sphere of influence wherever possible. These chapters make interesting reading and can be of great help to us for here. Evlekis (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was you, only your comment can look like a brick ;) You worry about the name of occupier? Well S. Milošević was f***ing clever bastard. He knew every second what he was doing. There are no documents that can connect him directly to any Karadžić or Martić concerning war actions. However he signed the peace paper finally. Not Karadžić and Martić. If you're interested in details, local Serbs in the autumn and winter 91/92 were used as a backup not as ace forces. All Serb offensives were by the weekends, caravans of Serbs were travelling in Fridays towards Croatia and returning by the end of Sundays. We called them "Weekend Chetniks". Just check dates of Serbian attacks in '91. Local Serbs (those from Krajina) were good butchers but not capable of making war plans. The most of them were poorly educated paisants. Also I don't think that anyone ever imagined that Martić was capable of making a plan about anything at all. He was a poor puppet in somebody else's hands. Constantly drunk and scared of his own shadow. If it was not occupation what other word can we use at all? With the same meaning? And occupier was a conglomeration of local Serbs, Serbs from B&H, Serbia and Montenegro and something that was used to be called JNA. S. Milošević was a pope of that religion. He was the one who fired the war atmosphere in the massive meetings in Serbia in the late 80's, he signed peace paper at the end. There was Zagreb-Belgrade telephone hotline in '91, '92 concerning firebreak conditions during the conflicts, not Zagreb-Knin. Zenanarh (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

He didn't so much "fire the war atmosphere" but his contribution worsened the matters which went back a little further than he did. Just reading your statement below about how multi-ethnic the HV was, against what you described as "Serb butcher peasants". Most people wouldn't know that the HV contained non-Croats, but you have first hand experience and you know the scenario to be different. You knew this because your compatriots became brothers during the fighting which is fair enough, these things happen. But I also know for a fact that your Serb enemies weren't all as "Serb" as you thought. Throughout the conflict, they too received volunteers from allied republics, and as for soldiers sent by Belgrade, I might remind you that Serbs only made up two thrids of the population of the former Serbia and Montenegrin entity. Vojvodina is multi-ethnic, with 20+ ethnic groups there. As conscripts, all citizens have a duty to serve; but if it were just volunteers, then maybe there would have been a heavier concentration comprising Serbs, and unless you were among them the way you mixed with your former colleagues, you wouldn't be able to appreciate that they too had a delegation of non-Serbs among the ranks. You mentioned the Serbian president of the time, it was nothing to do with him nor with Tudjman: neither of them published job descriptions which stated they only wanted pure Serbs/Croats among their ranks. Now I personally remember a report back in 2000 from a Sri Lankan source of all, about two voluntary soldiers who served in Serbian Krajina, and do you know where they were from? Ethiopia! Can you picture that! Maybe a little less suprising when you consider that these Ethiponians are Orthodox (as was Haile Selassie), so there existed a connection between them and the majority Serbs. But at times of conflict, just about any citizen of the world can check-in to a local recruiting centre and join a warring faction like booking a flight. There are occasional exceptions: obviously when an Islamist organisation deploys its memebers in a region where the locals delcared Jihad, I wouldn't like to be a Russian Orthodox priest suddenly arriving and asking for the job. But I've found, not just in the Balkans, but throughout the world that when conflicts as presented as "Ethnic Group A vs Ethnic group B", the actual division is more political than ethnic, and both groups tend to deploy external members. This Homeland War until 1995, was ultimately for a Croatian purpose, that fact that this new Republic of Croatia offered equality it to its citizens doesn't detract from the fact that it remains a Croatian symbol, and non-Croats, welcome as they are, realise that they need to serve the purposes of the republic and its existence. The current Iraqi president Jalal Talabani is Kurdish, but he is not in a position to suddenly say "ah, well, as I have the highest authority, I will make my people independent, then resign to living there!", the very post of Iraqi president was created to oversee the activities concerning Iraqi sovereignty, and to comprehend Iraqi sovereignty, you need to take an interest in Iraq and its history. For a time when Milošević was president during the Croatian wars, the head of the Secret Police in Belgrade was an ethnic Croat. Many who fought as Serbs in Bosnia had Islamic first names and surnames (but then they may still have declared themselves Serb, so that is a hard call), but the one-time leader of the SPS down in Preševo was Albanian, eventually he was murdered by Albanian separatists (in 2001 I think). On principle, there was an absolute majority of Croats among the Croatian ranks, and Serbs among the Serb ranks. I know today that in Sudan, their government - credited as Pan-Arab and targeting indigenous Africans - does have a significant number of non-Arabs including some of these Africans whom they are alleged to be harming. That's the way the world is Zenanarh. At times of conflict, each side will always paint an unreal picture of the other. Evlekis (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember that reports from massive Serbian meetings in the late 80's were received with horror and shock in Croatia. It was like big question in the air: what is this madman up to? I believe that probably up to 10% of positive votes of the huge percentage pro Cro indenpendance on referendum was direct result of it. There were no too many Serbs in my city (maybe somewhat over 5% of population). There were always some tensions between Croats and Serbs in the northern Dalmatia (especially since Serbs were treated as holy cows, by the communist authorities), but the majority never thought about politics. However after '87 some Serbs started to separate from the rest in social life. I remember verbal conflicts of that time among Serbs. There was a group which suddenly started to speak about Ustaše for no real reason, their opponents were the rest of Serbs who called them Chetniks and nationalists. We, Croats, were a little bit surprised about what's going on, in the beginning. We realized it in the hardest way in '91. Don't diminish importance of those Serbian nationalistic meetings. I don't think that in Croatia (after '91) anyone ever perceived it anyhow except as a part of the same monsterous master-plan of warlord S.M. and his machinery. Although it seemed meetings were caused by Serbian problems in Kosovo, S.M. used it as a platform to gain public support for his politics concerning much wider territory of ex-Yu than just Kosovo. Support in rhetorics and iconography in the late 80's became physical support in '91. Unfortunatelly. Zenanarh (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that "Serb butcher peasants" were on the other side. I've meant that local Serbs didn't give a lot of "intelligence" to conflict, but did produce butchers. Individuals of course. There were certainly some similar people on Cro side too. Zenanarh (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also a lot of loyal Serbs were soldiers in HV (Cro Army) in the same war. They were inhabitants of Croatia too." - now that's something you don't here every day... for my part, i have never, and i quote - "NEVER" heard of such thing... it's onconcievable to me, frankly... and "loyal" here is pure POV. at 95, there was no sfry, and there is no doubt about that, but at the beginning of the war separatists weren't serbs, tbh... who was loyal then?--PrimEviL 01:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong ! At the beginning Serbs are separatists because they have started action to create Serbian state from Croatian territory before Croatia has proclaimed "secession" from Yugoslavia--Rjecina (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Primevil's point was that he disputed a Serb presence in HV. There is nothing shocking about that. Serbs in small numbers live all over Croatia, and some in areas such as Istria which kept out of the wars. Wars by their nature are not as dividied-down-the-line as their exposers like to make out. In the case of the Balkan wars, all warring factions deployed some staff from the opponent ethnic groups. That's how it is all over the world, so there is nothing laughable or ridiculous about Serbs prospering in the HV. Evlekis (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How old are you PrimEviL? What do you know about that war at all? I was participant of it. There were not only Croats in HV. The majority were, but not all. Croatia mobilised its citizens, not neccesseraly Croats. In my anti-armor unit (15 of us) there were 1 American, 1 Roma. There was another unit (vanguard, sniperists) we were collaborating with, there was my friend from teenage years, a Montenigrin by ancestry but citizen of Croatia. He was badly wounded in '93. In a sister-unit to his, there was my best friend, Croatian Serb by ancestry (Krajina Serb). He was probably the most loved person in his unit and wider, because of his honesty and bravery. He made a suicide after the war (PTSP - post traumatic syndrome psychosis). Another 2 Serb friends of mine (also Krajina Serb ancestry) from 90's were not mobilised, but engaged in the civil city guards and support in our hometown under artillery attacks during all war. Both died of drug overdose, in 2002 and 2004. We were all the citizens of one Dalmatian city and friends from the same city quarter. This is only about my friends of Serb ancestry. Only one of my closer friends escaped in September '91, his parents were Serbs from Serbia and his father was JNA officer. Actually he didn't want to, it was after long argue with his father. He returned in '97 just to notice how our homecity changed (ruins) and vanished again - he was ashamed of not being there.

I know about an unit in October '91 completely consisting of non-Croats. 14 boys from B&H, Macedonia, Vojvodina and Kosovo led by a Muslim Bosniak, ex-JNA lieutenant. They all escaped together from JNA in the 1st days of war and stayed on Croatian side. They were extremely well armed and organized for that period. Actually they were lunatics - deactivating Serbian mine fields and replacing the same mines into new positions and all that on Serb controlled territory. This Bosniak leader became HV officer later. A few of his boys stayed in Croatia and got married.

It was not Croats vs Serbs baby. It was Republic of Croatia vs Serb agressors (both local rebels and imported zealots from Serbia and Bosnia). Zenanarh (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were interested, you could've checked my age at my sr.wiki profile(linked in both my en and hr profile) ;p on the topic - you're spreading the story too wide. like you have said it yourself - the region of eastern slavonia was in fact inhabited by the serbs. i beleive that the best solution would be to remove any serb refference from that sentence what-so-ever, as it isn't related to the "storm" itself. make it "solomonic", tbh :)--PrimEviL 03:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My solution is best--Rjecina (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed out a good editing dispute. In my humble opinion, I believe both words can accurately describe the situation, but in political terms it might need to be defined by a more political term (e.g. "occupied" or "held" since armies controlled it). Eh, and remember guys, try to stick to the subject at hand. Peace. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen yet any reason or relevant argument presented to support any change in the text. Concerning "occupied" Evlekis was the closest when he wrote: I am just concerned about the name of the occupier, believing that it needs to be a proper country, as the plain presence of foreign fighters doesn't equate to an occupation. A true occupying force works on a mandate issued by its own government, and as such, represents that government on the occupied territory at all times; independent of the fellow organisation it pubicly supports. However in the same sentence Evlekis gives acreditation to "occupied" here, if all circumstances are bear in mind. Weapon used was one of JNA. JNA command was in Belgrade, coordinated by the Milošević's office. Zenanarh (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fought in the Homeland War as well. There was indeed a JNA presence in the beginning, and that soon constituted an occupation once Croatia was recognized independent. But I had to put back my version because I took the trouble to explain how precarious the situation was, about Serbs coming across as rebels whilst believing themselves the legal authority. Balkantropolis (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted user Aradic text in he has explained in article Croatian War of Independence how JNA has became dominated by Serbs and now you demand that your POV explanation (like his) stay in this article. You are funny :)

Krajina has always been Croatian territory and writing that uit has been only during Yugoslav time is misleading. Even during Military Frontier period this has been Kingdom of Croatia territory borowed to Habsburg for defence against Turkish attacks.

Serbs in Krajina are rebels not because Croatia or Western media is saying that but because Wikipedia respected sources are telling that they are rebels. Word of wikipedia respected sources is stronger of me, you or anybody else (on Wikipedia).--Rjecina (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know they were rebels but they were not in their own eyes, so I explain how it comes that we refer to them as such. When we declared our independence, we legally had Krajina, but we never had control of it. By Operation Storm we established control of it. The last time we had Krajina inside an independent country was when he had our NDH. If that is what you mean to say when you state that we "retook it into Croatia" then, when are we going to "retake" Bosnia and Herzegovina which we also had? Balkantropolis (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)